1960 (5) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT

Whether an insurer will also include a person who was an insurer but has closed his business?

Whether the insurer admits them or not and whether a decree has been finally passed in respect of them or not?

Whether the Company is entitled to take into account the security deposit under s. 7 in order to show that the liabilities have been otherwise provided for?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. When s. 2D speaks of satisfaction or " provision otherwise " for the liabilities of insurance business which is closed it contemplates such satisfaction or " provision otherwise" over and above the deposit made under s. 7. It is not in dispute in this case that there are some liabilities still pending; it is also not in dispute that they are not satisfied and no provision has been made otherwise for them irrespective of the security deposit. This also appears to have been the position when the order was made in July, 1957. In the circumstances the order is good and cannot be called in question by the Company.